Two Buses out of Town
For the Jews (generally) and the Messianic that teach the Jews still have a valid Sinai covenant (and with it a valid Gen.15 ‘Abrahamic’ covenant); some key factors have to be either ignored, constantly overlooked or explained away; at least in favor of the protected belief. Certainly everything I have presented thus far must be scrapped, to continue to believe what has always been believed. That basically is the notion asserted by proponents that ‘new’ <dasha> (from ‘chadash’ 2318 & 2319) of the ‘new covenant’ or ‘Brit-ha-Dasha’ (from Jer.31:31-33) means only ‘re-New-ed’ as in ‘the same’. The problem is that <dasha> can mean by definition both ‘new’ and ‘re-New-ed’. To accept <dasha> to only mean ‘re-New-ed’ (i.e. the same) necessarily requires that proponents of this notion ignore the verbiage (“not like”) within the very ‘proof-text’ (Jer.31:31-33) sighted.
2Cor 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remains is glorious. :12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: :13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is ‘a b o l i s h e d’: (Heb.10:1-10)
2Cor.3:11-13 showcases the problem; v:11 speaks of ‘remains’; we intelligently know that ‘remain’ cannot be ‘remain’ unless it was established before. Laterally there is no point to use ‘remain’ as an informational awareness unless something did not ‘remain’. They are both valid; this is not an ‘either – or’ situation as in Greek ‘Step Logic’; it is a ‘both – and’ situation that is common in Hebrew ‘Block Logic’. Further; for ‘remain’ to make sense there had to also have been casualties – things that did not ‘remain’. This point is punctuated at v:13 in the word ‘abolished’ (Heb.10:9). Now the problem is laid bare; if we say ‘re-New-ed’ as in ‘the same’, we are ignoring ‘new’ as in “not like” (some Bibles say ‘not according to’ – Jer.31:32). Conversely; if we assert only ‘new’ (as in all together brand new) we are ignoring ‘re-New-ed’ in the verbiage ‘My Torah’ (law – Jer.31:33, Gen.26:5) as in the same i.e. unchanged from the beginning.
For those that will pounce on my use of “same i.e. unchanged”; my usage would be inclusive of all Torah (as in ‘instruction’) inclusive of all pivot points and evidence of pending future “till Shiloh come”/“Messianic” transition i.e. ‘reformation’ (Gen.49:10); “change” (Heb.7:11-13; 9:10; 10:9) that have always been there (2Cor.3:13) in the accounts of Torah. (dealt with at length in chapter #1 – ‘The Rightly Dividing Point’)
John 14:6 “ … I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Heb 9:10 “…and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation <diorthosis>”
We must guard against the cafeteria mind-set of pick and choose; an enee-menee-minee-moe; I like this verse but this one’s gotta go, mentality. It’s cousin is no better; tic tac toe, I accept Yahshua, but Paul’s a lying anti-law so and so (read Jn.16:12/Gal.1:11-12; Heb.5:12-13). Plainly; It is the ignoring, diminishing or out-right denial of <diorthosis> (“Messianic reformation” Heb.9:10) that identically tracks the Torah pronouncement account of Jacob/Israel (Gen.49:10, Ezk.21:27, Num.24:17) that facilitates the acceptance of the notion that there remains a valid covenant (involving both the Gen.15 Abraham, Gen.17 circumcision and Ex.19 Book of the Covenant) for ‘the Jews’ (more correctly – the House of Judah), laterally being valid along side the New Covenant for non-Jews.
This two buses out of town notion flies in the face of Yahshua being the ‘only’ way (Jn.14:6). With some few actually coming from the Christian Church, finding the Hebrew roots of the Christian faith – becoming enamored with all the trappings and literature of either Rabbinic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Karaite Judaism (at some point usually through Messianic Judaism); in some (dare I say most) cases these ‘few’ go on to take the vow of Judaism turning their back on Yahshua and the New Testament in favor of this ‘other way’.
‘Messianic Reformation’ is not solely a New Testament concept; Jacob (Israel) referenced it’s validity at Gen.49:10 (during the pronouncements on the 12 sons) in the words, “till Shiloh come” – ‘Shiloh’ by Hebrew definition is “an epithet (another name) of Messiah” clearly referencing a ‘pivot point’ i.e. a pending change, the apex of many changes (Col.2:14; Eph.2:15-16; Heb.7:11-13; 2Cor.3:11-13, etc.); that have always been evidenced in the Torah recorded by the hand of Moses at the mouth of Yahweh (Acts 15:19-21). Even Orthodox literature contains acknowledged admissions that there will be changes when (wink wink) Messiah does come. Of course the Orthodox do not accept Yahshua as the Messiah; as ever having come the first time changing anything.